A Trojan Horse for Creationism

A Trojan Horse for Creationism

There are 1536 comments on the Truthdig story from Mar 8, 2013, titled A Trojan Horse for Creationism. In it, Truthdig reports that:

I watched in shock the summer before my sophomore year of high school as my home state, Louisiana, passed a law that opened the door for the teaching of creationism.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Truthdig.

“the end-times is now”

Level 2

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#1355 Mar 17, 2013
now watch the insults fly .....
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#1356 Mar 17, 2013
His-truth wrote:
"If I were intolerant of the possibility of a "scientific theory" of ID I would not have asked you for it many many many times over. "
all I can say is that a man convinced against his will is un-convinced still .. par for the course
Sure, so it's MY fault you've presented zip.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#1357 Mar 17, 2013
His-truth wrote:
can't let this one go ..
"Since rocks also contain "information" just as DNA does"
rocks do not contain information .. rocks are matter alone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_%28geology%...

Look at all that info with links to many more. It's the same with DNA.

Intelligence is required only to DERIVE information. DNA is still DNA with no intelligence to observe it. All you need is a mechanism for this intelligent agent of yours.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1358 Mar 17, 2013
H-t, you are not ever going to find out how the genetic code originated if you are satisfied with "god dun it".

And you are admitting defeat about the theory of evolution by trying to move the goal posts to the topic of abiogenesis. Evolution describes how the present species that we see arose. Abiogenesis tells us how life began. Two different but related topics.

Even creationists believe in an abgiogenetic event.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#1359 Mar 17, 2013
His-truth wrote:
now watch the insults fly .....
Yeah, you're a martyr.(yawn) When you have nothing but repetition which has already been dealt with it is only reasonable to conclude you have nothing. Besides, you let the cat out of the bag when you started preaching Abrahamic dogma. Oh well.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1360 Mar 17, 2013
His-truth wrote:
now watch the insults fly .....
Should we go back and coutn the number of insults you have hurled out, hypocrit?

Why is it religious cult members are always the worst hypocrits? must be the piss poor moral guidance of the bible...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1361 Mar 17, 2013
His-truth wrote:
<quoted text>
If there are pebbles [rocks] below a rapids There are pebbles [rocks] below a rapids .... There is NO CODED INFORMATION associated with them .. unless you measure their size .. in which case you have created information to describe the pebbles ... based on your chosen symbols and units of measurement ... Same with orientation of sand dunes .. layers of hailstone .. Those objects represent only themselves ... there is no encoding / decoding mechanism within these material objects ... such as there is in DNA .... If someone says the layers of a hailstone are an encoding mechanism .. I reply that there is no convention of symbols .. nor is there a decoding mechanism
how did your mythical god get into a universe he didn't create?
your logic is weak, being a cult member does that to a brain.

when you get depriogrammed , your brain function will return.
Gillette

Packwood, IA

#1362 Mar 17, 2013
His-truth wrote:
DNA in our cells is very similar to an intricate computer program
Perhaps in SOME WAYS, but NOT IN OTHERS.

Therefore, the HONEST thing to say (ahem!) would be that DNA is sort of LIKE a code, but isn't really a code.

Virtually all codes we know were made by human beings encoding something to communicate to another human being who DEcodes the code.

That isn't really what happens in DNA, is it?
Gillette

Packwood, IA

#1363 Mar 17, 2013
DNA is Not a Code
http://livinglifewithoutanet.wordpress.com/20...

Excerpts:

As usual, this argument comes down to using words improperly. A code, by the strictest definition, is in fact something designed by intelligent beings. It is a system of symbols that either arbitrarily or by some system represent various things. The alphabet I’m using to write this blog is a code. There’s nothing about the individual letters that have any inherent meaning. They don’t do anything in and of themselves. By agreement between multiple humans, we have a legend, or a key, which most of us learned in grammar school. By using this legend, we can look at anything in the code “English” and through substitution, come to the knowledge of the concepts sybolized by the various letters.

This is the traditional idea of a code, and it is what theists think they mean when they argue that DNA is a code. The thing is, DNA is not that kind of a code. DNA is a a polymer, which is composed of individual chemical units called nucleotides. There are four types of these nucleotides, and we humans have decided to call them adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine. These names are not entirely arbitrary, but in the end, there’s nothing magical about them. We could call them Blob, Clob, Dob, and Emu, and they’d still be the same. Our language — the code we humans use to communicate — is just a way for us to give each other information and keep things separate in our own minds.

The nucleotides in DNA are often said to be the “blueprints” or “code” which define a sequence of messenger RNA which in turn defines at least one protein. In a sense, these proteins are the building blocks of life, and DNA is the “code” which determines the qualities of the life that will be built.

The problem with the theist argument, however, is that the DNA code is not arbitrary, and it does not rely at all on the agreement of sentient beings. In fact, it is exactly the same in nature as any other dynamic chemical process. When you see an explosion on TV, you’re watching a chemical reaction that was controlled by the same kind of “code.” Crystals grow based on such a code. Stars give off light and energy from the same kind of code.

All DNA is, to the chagrin of creationists, is a very, very complicated organic molecule that can react in a staggeringly large number of ways with other organic molecules.
..........

So, here is the ultimate problem with this particular theist argument. DNA is not an arbitrary set of symbols that “stand for” something else that will be interpreted through some kind of a legend. It is a set of chemicals which are nonthinking, and have no choice but to do what they do, in the same way that a crystal has no choice but to grow when in the presence of the appropriate aqueous solution.

DNA is not a “code” in the normal sense of the word. We call it a code because doing so gives us an easy way to think of the process by which a strand of DNA is responsible for the building of a living thing.

That’s it. When we look at a particular sequence of nucleotides, we can recognize that the chemical reaction they facilitate will produce a certain protein. This is no different from looking at a few grams of sodium or potassium and recognizing that in the presence of water, they will react in very specific ways to produce a violent exothermic reaction. If DNA is a code, then so is every other molecule in the universe. It’s just the consistency of the laws of nature. This, in the presence of that, will do the other.

So no, DNA is not a code. It is analogous to a code in enough ways that it makes sense for us to refer to things like the “genetic code,” but in the end, we’re just not talking about the kind of code that would make the theist argument valid. Sorry, theists, but you fail on this one, too.
Gillette

Packwood, IA

#1364 Mar 17, 2013
DNA : When Is A Code Not A Code ?
http://www.science20.com/chatter_box/dna_when...

Excerpt:

A code is a symbol which stands in place of a symbol. The four letters CAGT most definitely form a code, being symbols for the names of the four major components of DNA. The names guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine are not codes: they are primary symbols. Primary symbols stand for real things and not for symbols. The real physical entities guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine are not codes. If anyone wants to call them codes, let them point to the symbols which might be replaced by these 'codes'.

A computer code is a set of numerical values sufficient and necessary to the production of an end state from an initial state.

DNA is necessary but not sufficient to the production of an end state from an initial state.

To claim that computer code and DNA are both codes is an abuse of the power of words. It is decidedly not scientific.

end quote

“the end-times is now”

Level 2

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#1365 Mar 17, 2013
Living things look like they were designed .. so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed ?.. Richard Dawkins wrote ..“biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose" ... Francis Crick .. the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA .. wrote ..“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed .. but rather evolved”... The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design ... Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design ?.. Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer .. that is not acceptable .... Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes ?

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapte... .. Is the design explanation legitimate ?

http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed... .. Video

“the end-times is now”

Level 2

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#1366 Mar 17, 2013
Let's first consider some of the characteristics of this genetic 'language.' For it to be rightly called a language, it must contain the following elements:

__ an alphabet or coding system,
__ correct spelling,
__ grammar (a proper arrangement of the words),
__ meaning (semantics) and an intended purpose.

Scientists have found the genetic code has all of these key elements .. "The coding regions of DNA," explains Dr. Stephen Meyer .. "have exactly the same relevant properties as a computer code or language."

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1367 Mar 17, 2013
His-truth wrote:
Living things look like they were designed .. so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed ?.. Richard Dawkins wrote ..“biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose" ... Francis Crick .. the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA .. wrote ..“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed .. but rather evolved”... The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design ... Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design ?.. Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer .. that is not acceptable .... Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes ?
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapte... .. Is the design explanation legitimate ?
http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed... .. Video
You of course missed Dawkins' point. People look for patterns, it is part of being human. We look for design where there is none.

Has anyone not looks at clouds to see if you could see animals in them? Yet we know there is no design in clouds. So you need to know the difference in apparent design and real design. The supposed design you see in nature is merely a reaction to the forces of nature.

“the end-times is now”

Level 2

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#1368 Mar 17, 2013
ID is not a religious-based idea ..........

In 2004, the distinguished philosopher Antony Flew of the University of Reading made worldwide news when he repudiated a lifelong commitment to atheism and affirmed the reality of some kind of a creator.
Flew cited evidence of intelligent design in DNA and the arguments of "American [intelligent] design theorists" as important reasons for this shift ... Since then ..
British readers have learnt about the theory of intelligent design (ID) mainly from media reports about United States court battles over the legality of teaching students about it ...
According to most reports .. ID is a "faith-based" alternative to evolution based solely on religion ... But is this accurate ?.. As one of the architects of the theory .. I know it isn't ...
Contrary to media reports .. ID is not a religious-based idea ... but an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins ....
According to Darwinian biologists such as Oxford University's Richard Dawkins .. living systems "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose"

.... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-v... .. continue

Since: Aug 10

Hollis Center, ME

#1369 Mar 17, 2013
His-truth wrote:
Living things look like they were designed .. so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed ?.. Richard Dawkins wrote ..“biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose" ... Francis Crick .. the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA .. wrote ..“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed .. but rather evolved”... The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design ... Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design ?.. Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer .. that is not acceptable .... Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes ?
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapte... .. Is the design explanation legitimate ?
http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed... .. Video
So says the shotgun preacher

Get a cause that matters!

“the end-times is now”

Level 2

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#1370 Mar 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
People look for patterns it is part of being human. We look for design where there is none has anyone not looks at clouds to see if you could see animals in them Yet we know there is no design in clouds So you need to know the difference in apparent design and real design The supposed design you see in nature is merely a reaction to the forces of nature
.......... and then they all lived hApPY ever after

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1371 Mar 17, 2013
His-truth wrote:
ID is not a religious-based idea ..........
In 2004, the distinguished philosopher Antony Flew of the University of Reading made worldwide news when he repudiated a lifelong commitment to atheism and affirmed the reality of some kind of a creator.
Flew cited evidence of intelligent design in DNA and the arguments of "American [intelligent] design theorists" as important reasons for this shift ... Since then ..
British readers have learnt about the theory of intelligent design (ID) mainly from media reports about United States court battles over the legality of teaching students about it ...
According to most reports .. ID is a "faith-based" alternative to evolution based solely on religion ... But is this accurate ?.. As one of the architects of the theory .. I know it isn't ...
Contrary to media reports .. ID is not a religious-based idea ... but an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins ....
According to Darwinian biologists such as Oxford University's Richard Dawkins .. living systems "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose"
.... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-v... .. continue
Why even mention Antony Flew's change from atheism? He was still not a Christian. He still believed the theory of evolution when he died. I seriously doubt your claims about him supporting ID. He definitely believed in common descent, in other words he knows we are descended from monkeys.

So by you using him as a source and endorsing him you are essentially endorsing evolution.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1372 Mar 17, 2013
His-truth wrote:
<quoted text>
.......... and then they all lived hApPY ever after
Some people are born stupid.

H-t really has to work at it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#1373 Mar 18, 2013
His-truth wrote:
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CODES AND PATTERNS
PATTERNS occur naturally .. no help required from a 'designer'... Many patterns occur in nature without the help of a designer .. snowflakes .. tornadoes .. hurricanes .. sand dunes .. stalactites .. rivers and ocean waves ... These patterns are the natural result of what scientists categorize as chaos and fractals .. These things are well-understood and we experience them every day
CODES .. however .. do not occur without a designer ... Examples of symbolic codes include music .. blueprints .. languages like English and Chinese .. computer programs .. and yes .. DNA
And no, not DNA.

The codes you listed like Chinese use arbitrary symbols to represent abstract ideas. There is no physical necessity for us to agree that this squiggle: RED , means light of a particular wavelength.

DNA on the other hand is not an arbitrary assignment of symbols to meanings. Its simply a chemical template. The base sequence AAA bonds to the amino acid lysine simply because its a better fit chemically. You cannot arbitrarily change that.

We say DNA is a code but that is really an analogy. The DNA bonding with particular amino acids (yes through intermediates which are just as "non-arbitrary") is just a chemical reaction in the end, even if its more complex than any others observed.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#1374 Mar 18, 2013
His-truth wrote:
Let's first consider some of the characteristics of this genetic 'language.' For it to be rightly called a language, it must contain the following elements:
__ an alphabet or coding system,
__ correct spelling,
__ grammar (a proper arrangement of the words),
__ meaning (semantics) and an intended purpose.
Scientists have found the genetic code has all of these key elements .. "The coding regions of DNA," explains Dr. Stephen Meyer .. "have exactly the same relevant properties as a computer code or language."
1. If you call a straight and non arbitrary matching of one chemical to another a "coding system". Its not.

2. Yes

3. Yes.

4. Nope. No abstract meaning. No "intended" purpose. You might say its purpose is to provide templates for proteins, but adding the word "intended" is an assumed conclusion on your part.

Put it this way. A page of written English will just lie there like a bunch of meaningless squiggles until a conscious mind exists to make sense of it. But no consciousness is required to "make sense" of DNA. Just a bunch of cellular machinery. So its not symbolic or arbitrary, just a product of natural physical law.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 2 hr nanoanomaly 117
How can we prove God exists, or does not? (May '15) 2 hr Nemesis 503
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 hr Agents of Corruption 221,485
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr 15th Dalai Lama 74,760
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 5 hr Dogen 4,048
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 5 hr Dogen 293
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr Science 161,953
More from around the web